> Daniel tiger jams in diversity at every opportunity.
It clearly doesn't given that Daniel Tiger's family, the primary family unit of the show, is a heterosexual couple.
> interracial
I guess I'm losing track of what we're supposed to be offended about now. OP suggested that depicting a heterosexual couple was “brave”, I pointed out that it happens all the time. Are we now arguing that there should be absolutely no instances of mixed-race, orientation or disabilities in kids shows at all?
Jack has ADD
Chili's sister is infertile
Winton, Judo, and the Terriers are from single parent households
There's a deaf kid featured in Turtleboy
There's a wheelchair kid in Quiet Game
"Chocolate Milk" from Tradies is in a mixed breed relationship
In fact, the whole fact that different breeds are interacting is an allegory for racial inclusion.
So yeah, Bluey gets a little "woke" here and there.
Sorry, not sorry.
So the argument is no longer that presenting an intact heterosexual nuclear family is worthy of positive note, but that instead presenting exclusively intact monoracial nuclear families is worthy of positive note?
With the former, I would agree, except that its so common that while it may be positive its hardly noteworthy; with the latter... just no.
No, I don't. A standard was set that the problem was the absence of media depicting intact nuclear families. Daniel Tiger depicts intact nuclear families, but was argued to not be a counterexample to the complaint because it also shows other families and because one of the intact nuclear families it shows is interracial.
This clearly shows that the problem is not the absence of depictions of intact nuclear families, but the presence of other families (and interracial families, even when they are intact nuclear families.)
And you’ve reinforced that with this post, complaining that there is insufficient story justification for these deviations from your preferred norm, which, again, demonstrates that your problem is not the absence of positive depictions of intact nuclear fanilies but the presence of other families (and interracial nuclear families) without sufficient justification for the departure from your preferred exclusive norm.
Can you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've done it repeatedly, not just in this thread and not just on this topic, and you've repeatedly broken HN's guidelines. (e.g. like you did with the swipe at the end of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38715161 - you went from making substantive points to a cheap putdown which was obvious flamebait.)
I'm sure you have substantive things to say, but when you toss in Molotov cocktails along the way, it becomes flamebait and you're breaking HN's rules—regardless of which position you're fighting for or against. You've been doing that repeatedly, it isn't cool, and it's also not in your interest because it makes your comments less persuasive. People will react to the provocations, lose your substantive points, and in the process the thread turns ugly. By doing this, you damage not only the thread but the community.
Is it pandering? None of those things are rare, and I'd be surprised to find out any significant portion of the population wouldn't encounter them in their own school. It's literally just a representation of the real world.
I guess preparing children for the world that exists is "woke" or something.
A kid in a wheelchair. Another with mild autism. Another whose being raised by the grandparents because her mother is a drug addict. Another with pretty severe alopecia (this being her "best friend"). One of her other friends has been very sad because her aunt was killed in Israel.
This is all "real world". And it affects us despite it not happening to our family. At least not yet.
I find it easier to learn abstract things like morals when there are also examples presented along-side them. More so when those examples are practical and applicable to my life. I find this to be a common sentiment.
Are you really trying to say that showing brown people and kids with a single parent is equivalent to showing rape and drug use?
Perhaps you should pause and reflect on your own morals if you think these are equivalent.
First off, you brought up someone being killed as a real world struggle, so don't act like I pulled these real world events out of nowhere and tried to equate it to "brown people" (your words) alluding that I'm racist or something.
Second, my point was to show you that not everything in the real world needs to be depicted directly in kids shows. Not to make an equivalence of those listed things, but to test the consistency of the logic.
Learning morals you can learn how to handle those situations and ideals in the future without being introduced to inappropriate things too early in life.
Perhaps you shouldn't try to make an ad-hominem attack on my morals because you can't interpret it correctly. If you didn't understand, you could have asked for clarification.
I'd argue that encountering people that are slightly different than one's self is a normal daily reality for most people, and that using those people as characters in the protagonists' lives is just making the show relatable. I don't think it's a moral lesson any more than having parents who don't murder every episode is a moral lesson - sure it's an example of decent morals but it's not a lesson in morality.
That is to say, using same logic on "depicting brown people" and "depicting rape" is fundamentally flawed, it doesn't make sense to apply the same rules to "proximity to disabled people" and "murder" they aren't remotely in the same category. They are fundamentally different, and even if they were somehow similar enough to apply the same logic, they are not in any way similar in scope, its like claiming that showing a kid keeping a $100 bill they find on the street is somehow the same as showing a kid planning a multibillion dollar crypto heist... they involve different morals, different situations, and different consequences for every single person involved - that is they aren't the same.
Further, I never brought up someone being killed - that was a different person. You can tell because we have different usernames.
